Alcohol and Drugs - Debunking Myths (Should Christians drink alcohol? What does the Bible say?) The expanded examination by Brent MacDonald Index Preface to the expanded version Introduction The Myth of Non-Alcoholic Wine The myth that New Wine would have been considered better than Old Wine in Bible times Why study this issue? The myth that total abstinence from alcoholic beverages is the only cure for the evils of excess The myth that the "law of first mention" proves that alcoholic wine is wrong The myth that Jesus drank non-alcoholic wine for Passover The myth that Jesus, as our high priest, could never have drunk alcoholic beverages. The myth that adopting practices from the Old Testament law will somehow make you more holy. The myth that believers are priests unto God in the same order as the Old Testament (Mosaic) priests. The myth that the yeast that formed the alcohol would have made wine impure. The myth that the Passover wine had to be pure wine. The myth that Jesus was under a Nazarite vow. The myth that only wine was permitted as an alcoholic drink. The myth that Jesus refused the wine/vinegar at his crucifixion because it was alcoholic. The myth that the command to "be sober" requires complete abstinence from alcoholic beverages The myth that we shouldn't drink at all because people might think (or say) that we condone or practice drunkenness The myth that our freedom in Christ enables us to drink to excess or to impose our freedom on others. The myth that only grape-juice can be used for the Lord's Supper (Communion, Eucharist, etc.) The myth that everyone has to drink wine. The myth that alcohol and drugs are not the same topic The myth that only grape-juice could be a symbol of God's Blessing The myth that church leaders should never drink alcoholic beverages The myth that this article was written to defend the author's cultural norm or bias

Preface to the expanded version Numerous questions, in addition to those considered by the original article, plus a host of traditional arguments that were brought forward, all made the expansion of this article necessary. It is important that all readers take the time to consider the totality of this subject. Some responses received were quick to take one or two passages to present their view, which could in isolation perhaps be construed to say what they wanted. Passages far more difficult to explain from their viewpoint were ignored or left in silence. This is not a valid exposition of Scriptures; rather it is an eisegesis - making the text say what you want it to say. It is also important to consider the events of Scripture in the historical, geographical, setting which they took place. While it is true that God's Word is timeless, understanding how the original readers would have understood something (especially the usage of words) helps to establish context. This expanded version will provide even more in this area to combat the easy fallacy of interpreting Scriptures through the lens of our modern culture and traditions.

Introduction What about alcohol? Did Jesus drink fermented drinks? Is drinking wrong? What about other drugs? All are common and related questions. While some would say that drugs are a completely different topic than alcohol, we believe it to be an intertwined subject requiring at least a brief consideration in this same article. While there are strong emotional responses to the subject of alcoholic beverages, emotions can be misleading. Things done even with good intent may cloud the truth of Scriptures. One popular myth needs to be laid to rest at the very beginning, as it is the foundation on which many modern claims are built.

The Myth of Non-Alcoholic Wine Wait a minute! Of course there's non-alcoholic wine, we've all seen it in our grocery stores, plus there's the ever popular Welch's grape juice that many churches use for communion. There is no disputing the fact of non-alcoholic wine existing today. The question is; when did we first get non-alcoholic wine and grape juice? The answer comes as surprise to many people raised in churches that have said that all alcoholic beverages are evil or that Jesus only drank non-alcoholic wine. Until 1869 there was no such thing as non-alcoholic wine or grape juice apart from drinking it the very day it was squeezed. Until that time and actually for a number of years afterward, every church that celebrated communion (or the Lord's Supper, or the Eucharist) used alcoholic wine. It was the only thing available! To understand why, we need to take a few minutes to consider how wine comes about (or is made). When grapes are crushed the resultant grape juice is, at the moment, true grape juice. Unless it is processed in a special manner that was invented in 1869, the grape juice almost immediately begins a natural process of fermentation. Fermentation happens rapidly, caused by natural yeasts in the environment. In modern settings, specific yeasts are often introduced to enhance flavor. In fact, some natural yeast can introduce distinctly undesirable flavors. In theory, in a perfectly sterile environment the grape juice would not ferment. In practice the grapes themselves are covered with these yeasts and sometimes other contaminants (some that can even ruin the wine). Regardless, in ancient times, the stone or wooden vats and buildings would easily have had everything necessary to start the process of fermentation. Wine Presses: Many of the ancient wine presses remain to the present day. Ordinarily they consisted of two rectangular or circular excavations, hewn (Isaiah 5:2) in the solid rock to a depth of 2 or 3 feet. Where possible one was always higher than the other and they were connected by a pipe or channel. Their size, of course, varied greatly, but the upper vat was always wider and shallower than the lower and was the press proper, into which the grapes were thrown, to be crushed by the feet of the treaders (Isaiah 63:1-3, etc.). The juice flowed down through the pipe into the lower vat, from which it was removed into jars (Haggai 2:16) or where it was allowed to remain during the first fermentation. (International Standard Bible Encyclopaedia) For emphasis, it must be again noted that the freshly pressed grape juice begins the process of fermentation almost immediately. The process is that of the yeast converting the sugar into alcohol. In modern settings winemakers have ways of stopping the fermentation process to make the wine sweeter if desired. During ancient times the process would continue until the sugars were consumed. Fermentation: In the climate of Palestine fermentation begins almost immediately, frequently on the same day for juice pressed out in the morning, but never later than the next day. At first a slight foam appears on the surface of the liquid, and from that moment, according to Jewish tradition, it is liable to the wine-tithe (Ma`aseroth 1:7). The action rapidly becomes more violent, and while it is in progress the liquid must be kept in jars or in a vat, for it would burst even the newest and strongest of wine-skins (Job 32:19). Within about a week this violent fermentation subsides, and the wine is transferred to other jars or strong wine-skins (Mark 2:22 and parallel's), in which it undergoes the secondary fermentation. ... At the end of 40 days it was regarded as properly "wine" and could be offered as a drink offering (`Edhuyyoth 6:1). (International Standard Bible Encyclopaedia) Drinking the wine at earlier points would have meant that it would have less alcoholic content, but after the secondary fermentation was complete, there would be little change in alcoholic content. Modern wines (excluding those that are fortified, meaning they have extra alcohol added) vary from 8-14% alcohol. As fermentation stops when the sugar level drops below 0.1%, the alcohol content is dependant on the sugar content of the grapes. Grapes grown in different areas, and different types of grapes, will yield varying alcoholic content. As for Welch's grape juice, it came about from the efforts of a well meaning churchman... On a warm September day nearly 130 years ago, a Vineland [NJ] dentist - a strict prohibitionist and religious man - set out to make a nonalcoholic wine to be served at communion service in his church. He, his wife and their teenage son gathered baskets of grapes from the porch trellises near their home, soaked them, filtered the juice and pasteurized it (a relatively new and controversial sterilization method). They bottled, sealed and stored the juice. Then the family, anticipating the worst, sat back and waited and waited weeks for what it thought would be the inevitable explosion. It never happened. The experiment, decades later, however, would explode into a successful worldwide marketing venture that flourishes even today, and the dentist's name - Dr. Thomas Bramwell Welch - would become synonymous with grape juice, jam and jellies. (Juicy Story Puts Vineland on the Map, by Eileen Bennett, staff writer for The Press of Atlantic City) The myth that New Wine would have been considered better than Old Wine in Bible times Luke 5:37-39 And no one pours new wine into old wineskins. If he does, the new wine will burst the skins, the wine will run out and the wineskins will be ruined. 38 No, new wine must be poured into new wineskins. 39 And no one after drinking old wine wants the new, for he says, 'The old is better.'" (NIV) This portion of a parable that Jesus taught, clearly reflected a fact of ancient times; namely that old wine was considered to be the better wine. As verses 37 and 38 show, the wine being spoken about was after its initial fermentation (during which the wine would have burst any wineskin). The reason that old wine would have been considered better has nothing to do with alcoholic content (which is present early on) and everything to do with taste. Aging often enhances the taste of the wine, making it more flavorful, so long as other contamination does not occur. The superiority of old wine to new was acknowledged by the Hebrews, in common with the rest of the world (Sirach 9:10; Luke 5:39), but in the wines of Palestine acetous fermentation, changing the wine into vinegar, was likely to occur at any time. Three years was about the longest time for which such wines could be kept, and "old wine" meant only wines that had been, stored for a year or more. (International Standard Bible Encyclopaedia) Nowadays better sealing of our bottles allows wine to age much longer, again for the purposes of enhancing flavor not alcoholic content, though it too can potentially turn at any time. Consider the wedding at Cana... John 2:1-10 On the third day there was a wedding in Cana of Galilee, and the mother of Jesus was there; 2 and both Jesus and His disciples were invited to the wedding. 3 When the wine ran out, the mother of Jesus said to Him, "They have no wine." 4 And Jesus said to her, " Woman, what does that have to do with us? My hour has not yet come." 5 His mother said to the servants, "Whatever He says to you, do it." 6 Now there were six stone waterpots set there for the Jewish custom of purification, containing twenty or thirty gallons each. 7 Jesus said to them, "Fill the waterpots with water." So they filled them up to the brim. 8 And He said to them, "Draw some out now and take it to the headwaiter." So they took it to him. 9 When the headwaiter tasted the water which had become wine, and did not know where it came from (but the servants who had drawn the water knew), the headwaiter called the bridegroom, 10 and said to him, "Every man serves the good wine first, and when the people have drunk freely, then he serves the poorer wine; but you have kept the good wine until now." (NASU) The wine Jesus made, in this miraculous way, was obviously the best tasting wine. Which wine was that? The rarer, aged, old wine! It's not that it would be any more fermented than the new wine, merely that the old had better flavor. All of the wine at this wedding was fully fermented due to the time of the year the wedding was being held -- only shortly before the Passover as implied by John 2:12-13. The poorer wine would have been newer wine, perhaps four or five months old. It may have even been diluted with water, as they feared running out, due to insufficient quantities being on hand for all the guests. Also remember that the wedding celebration extended over many days, so it should not be presupposed that Jesus was encouraging the guests to drink to excess. Mentioning that the guests had "drunk freely" in verse 10 does not have to mean that they drank too much, rather that they drank each of the days of the celebration until supplies had run out. The groom, to his shame, had failed to have enough wine to make it through all the days of the celebration. Jesus merely provided that which was lacking (removing the shame of the groom and blessing the ordinance of marriage as practiced in their culture). Some have contrived elaborate theological scenarios to say that the wine Jesus created could not have been alcoholic, yet these clearly violate a true principle of Biblical interpretation, namely the historical/cultural context of the account. In the case of historical narrative such as the account of the wedding at Cana, it is important to ask, "What would the original readers of John's gospel have understood this account to say?" While the Bible is written for all ages, it will not change in meaning for subsequent generations, regardless of how culture changes... how it would have been understood at the time of writing is the true understanding.

Why study this issue? Drinking of alcoholic beverages has been a very divisive issue in the church for about a century and a half. Much of this dates back to when church groups became the leading factor in events surrounding prohibition in the United States. During and following that era, many churches added a line similar to "we shall abstain from the use and sale of alcohol as a beverage" to their church covenants. A number of them still recite those lines today. For specific example, we have included two currently circulated versions in their entirety (bold emphasis ours): CHURCH COVENANT - Version 1 Having been led, as we believe, by the spirit of God, to receive the Lord Jesus Christ as our Savior, and on the profession of our faith, having been baptized in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost, we do now in the presence of God, angels and this assembly, most solemnly and joyfully enter into covenant with one another, as one body in Christ. We engage, therefore, by the aid of the Holy Spirit, to walk together in Christian Love; to strive for the advancement of his church, in knowledge, holiness and comfort; to promote its prosperity and spirituality, to sustain its worship, ordinances, discipline, and doctrines to contribute cheerfully and regularly to the support of the ministry, the expenses of the church, the relief of the poor, and the spread of the gospel through all nations. We also engage to maintain family and secret devotions; to religiously educate our children to seek the salvation of our kindred and acquaintances; to walk circumspectly in the world; to be just in our dealings; faithful in our engagements, and exemplary in our deportment; to avoid all tattling, backbiting, and excessive anger; to abstain from the sale and use of intoxicating drinks as a beverage; and to be zealous in our efforts to advance the kingdom of our Savior. We further engage to watch over one another in brotherly love; to remember each other in prayer; to aid each other in sickness and distress; to cultivate Christian sympathy in feeling and courtesy in speech; to be slow to take offense, but always ready for reconciliation, and mindful of the rules of our Savior to secure it without delay. We moreover engage that when we move from this place we will, as soon as possible, unite with some other church, where we can carry out the spirit of this covenant and the principles of God's Word. CHURCH COVENANT - Version 2 Having been led by the Holy Spirit to receive the Lord Jesus Christ as our Saviour, and on the public confession of our faith, having been immersed in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, we do now, in the presence of God and this assembly, solemnly and joyfully enter into covenant with one another, as one body in Christ. We purpose, therefore, by the aid of the Holy Spirit, to walk together in Christian love; to strive for the advancement of this church in knowledge, holiness and comfort; to promote its prosperity and spirituality; to attend its services regularly; to sustain its worship, ordinances, discipline and doctrines; to give it a sacred preeminence over all institutions of human origin; to give faithfully of time and talent in its activities; to contribute cheerfully and regularly, as God has prospered us, to support of the ministry, the expenses of the church, the relief of the poor, and the spread of the gospel throughout all nations. We also purpose to maintain family and private donations, to train our children according to the Word of God; to seek the salvation of our kindred and acquaintances; to walk circumspectly in the world; to be just in our dealings, faithful in our engagements, and exemplary in our conduct; to avoid all gossip, backbiting and unrighteous anger; to abstain from the sale or use of alcohol (as a beverage), marijuana, dangerous drugs, or any other intoxicant; to abstain from all forms of activity which dishonor our Lord Jesus Christ, cause stumbling to a fellow believer, or hinder the winning of a soul to Christ; to be zealous in our efforts to advance the cause of Christ, our Saviour; and to give Him preeminence in all things. We further purpose to encourage one another in the blessed hope of our Lord's return; to watch over one another in brotherly love; to remember each other in prayer; to aid each other in sickness and distress; to cultivate Christian sympathy in feeling and courtesy in speech; to be slow to take offense, but always ready for reconciliation and, mindful of the rules of our Saviour, to seek it without delay. We moreover purpose that when we remove from this place, we will, as soon as possible, unite with some other church of like faith and order where we can carry out the spirit of the covenant and the principles of God's Word. In the event there is no such church, we shall seek, with the Lord's help, establish one. Many more churches, apart from a covenant, still unequivocally cite that drinking of alcoholic beverages is sin. This makes it very important that all of scripture be examined to find if there is sound biblical basis for these claims or if they, perhaps, fall into the categories of traditions of men (Mark 7:9) or legalism. Colossians 2:20-23 Since you died with Christ to the basic principles of this world, why, as though you still belonged to it, do you submit to its rules: 21 "Do not handle! Do not taste! Do not touch!"? 22 These are all destined to perish with use, because they are based on human commands and teachings. 23 Such regulations indeed have an appearance of wisdom, with their self-imposed worship, their false humility and their harsh treatment of the body, but they lack any value in restraining sensual indulgence. The myth that total abstinence from alcoholic beverages is the only cure for the evils of excess Returning to the account of Dr. Welch, the reason cited for his desiring to create a non-alcoholic wine was, on the surface, out of good intent. Oddly enough, the experiment [to create non-alcoholic wine] supposedly was sparked by an unruly visitor to the Welch home, then on the southeast corner of Fourth and Plum Streets. According to historical reports, a Sunday visitor to the Welch home "who had a weakness for alcohol," partook of the communion wine at church services but didn't stop with just the religious imbibing. He kept on drinking, and became rowdy. Welch, a strict prohibitionist who preached temperance, became upset. A communion steward of the Vineland Methodist Church, Welch decided then and there that a nonalcoholic wine was needed and he began his experiments. (Juicy Story Puts Vineland on the Map, by Eileen Bennett, staff writer for The Press of Atlantic City) Of course, any Christian would be concerned about this man and his excess regarding alcohol. What remains is the question of whether creating a means of total denial, or total abstinence, is the best possible solution. It was this very belief that led to monks of old seeking isolation and Spartan living conditions. The thought, even then, was that removing all possible stimuli or temptation would keep the individual free from sin and excess. The lesson of history, and scriptures (see again Colossians 2:20-23), is that this method is prone to failure. Why? Because sin comes from the heart (Jeremiah 17:9). Removing the externals does nothing to cure the real problem which requires an inward-outward work. Self-control is a fruit of the Spirit of God (Galatians 5:22-23). Romans 12:1-2 Therefore, I urge you, brothers, in view of God's mercy, to offer your bodies as living sacrifices, holy and pleasing to God - this is your spiritual act of worship. 2 Do not conform any longer to the pattern of this world, but be transformed by the renewing of your mind. Then you will be able to test and approve what God's will is - his good, pleasing and perfect will. (NIV) Renewing our mind comes from retraining it in a godly manner as enabled by the Spirit of God dwelling within us. Many believers, though, believe that somehow adopting the pattern of this world will somehow accomplish change. It's the world's pattern that says externals make all the difference. It's the world's mind-set that thinks external change is real change. Adopted by the church, this is the mind-set that teaches external conformity to all the rules - if a person looks like and acts like a good Christian (by the rules they set) it's what matters most. The result of this all too often is counterfeit Christians, people who believe they're good people merely because they externally conform to all the rules. Before leaving this subject, the remainder of what took place to promote Welch's non-alcoholic wine to the status it attained in many churches can be seen from the rest of the story. The unfermented wine wasn't an instant success, however. Churches at first were reluctant to deviate from tradition. Many years later, Dr. Welch's son Charles (who would take over the company and launch it into worldwide fame) his father, referring to the time when hopes for the product's success seemed dismal. "You squeezed grapes, you squeezed the family nearly out of money; you squeezed your friends. It seemed necessary to acknowledge defeat - financial defeat, only, and get out from under the load," he wrote. Gradually, though, the new product gained popularity. From 1869 to 1872, Dr. Welch produced a limited amount of unfermented wine for churches in southern New Jersey and southeast Pennsylvania. Soon the demand was more than one man could handle and Welch formed the Welch's Fruit Juice Company, forerunner of today's internationally known Welch Company. Cumberland County historian Delbert Brandt has researched the Welch family and its contributions to the area. "He was a teetotalling Methodist ... and a man of great ability. When he got into the grape business, it was a religious thing. But when his son was brought into the business, it took off and they could forget about the dental business." ... Like his father, Charles was an avowed advocate of prohibition. And when the prohibition movement began to pick up steam during the administration of Woodrow Wilson, the Welch name really took off. Since Welch's Grape Juice was the only nonalcoholic fruit drink on the market, it was a natural substitute for alcoholic drinks. William Jennings Bryan, then Secretary of State, held a diplomatic dinner for the British ambassador in Washington, and instead of serving the traditional wine, served Welch's Grape Juice. Political cartoonists lampooned Bryan - one showed Uncle Sam drinking grape juice called "Grape Juice Democracy." In the process, they made Welch a household name. (Juicy Story Puts Vineland on the Map, by Eileen Bennett, staff writer for The Press of Atlantic City) Notice that it took time for the churches to leave what had been the norm for more than 1800 years. The pressure to do so was not so much religious reasons, though often couched in those terms; it was primarily worldly -- as the government adopted the 'externals' approach to an internal problem. Imagine for a moment that someone invents a food substitute that provides most of the flavor but almost none of the calories. This happens not just for one or two foods, but an entirely new line-up of all foods engineered for this purpose. Within a few years, the government starts promoting it as the fix for the poor eating habits of America, a cure for gluttony and the overweight problem of society. How long would we have to wait before churches adopt it for religious reasons? Imagine how it would be promoted... "Doesn't the Bible teach that gluttony is a sin? Of course! This is why God never intended any person to be overweight and has provided us with alternatives that are healthy. It would be a sin to eat those things that cause you to be overweight." After a hundred or so years, it's not inconceivable that some churches would be teaching that Jesus made the "low/no calorie version" of fish and loaves, during His miracles, since "there is no way He would have promoted the sin of gluttony by making the other." Philippians 3:18-19 For, as I have often told you before and now say again even with tears, many live as enemies of the cross of Christ. 19 Their destiny is destruction, their god is their stomach, and their glory is in their shame. Their mind is on earthly things. (NIV) That last example regarding food may sound absurd, but this is exactly what has been done with alcoholic beverages. It's filtering the events by our cultural worldview. Regardless of the culture, the problems of both gluttony and alcoholic excess rest in a worldly mind-set that misuses (or takes to excess) what God has made (or said to be) good.

The myth that the "law of first mention" proves that alcoholic wine is wrong Genesis 9:20-25 Noah, a man of the soil, proceeded to plant a vineyard. 21 When he drank some of its wine, he became drunk and lay uncovered inside his tent. 22 Ham, the father of Canaan, saw his father's nakedness and told his two brothers outside. 23 But Shem and Japheth took a garment and laid it across their shoulders; then they walked in backward and covered their father's nakedness. Their faces were turned the other way so that they would not see their father's nakedness. 24 When Noah awoke from his wine and found out what his youngest son had done to him, 25 he said, "Cursed be Canaan! The lowest of slaves will he be to his brothers." Accepted and longstanding principles of interpreting Scriptures establish rules to help us properly determine what the passage intended to say. Included in these, in simplified wording, are the facts that Scripture interprets Scriptures, and context establishes meaning. (For a good book on this, read Studying and Interpreting and Applying the Bible by Walter Hendrichsen and Gayle Jackson). The rule some have called "the law of first mention" does not appear in all of these accepted lists of rules, and actually in no ancient ones. Respected teacher Arthur W. Pink, who held it as ones of his rules of interpretation, acknowledges that it was not truly established as a rule until the 1600's... The law of first mention. Very frequently this is of great help in arriving at the meaning of a word or expression. Since there be but one Speaker throughout the entire Word, and He knew from the beginning all that He was going to say, He has so ordered His utterances as to forecast from the outset whatever was to follow. Thus, by noting its setting and associations, the initial occurrence of anything in the Scriptures usually intimates to us how it subsequently will be employed. In other words, the earliest pronouncement of the Holy Spirit on a subject very frequently indicates, substantially, what is found in the later references thereto. This is of real assistance to the expositor, supplying him with a kind of key to what follows. So far as we are aware, attention was originally directed to this canon of exegesis by Lord Bacon (1600), and for more than forty years this writer has made use of the same, putting it to the test in scores of instances; and while he has found a few cases where the first mention of a term failed to intimate clearly its future scope, he has never met with one that was out of harmony therewith; and the vast majority of them were invaluable in serving to define their significance and scope. (INTERPRETATION OF THE SCRIPTURES, by Arthur W. Pink [1886-1952], Chapter 20) Notice that Pink also admits that as a rule, the first use does not always establish everything there is to know about the subject; merely that later usage will not contradict the original though it might expand on it. Those who draw upon this rule in regards to alcoholic beverages claim that the account of Noah, the first usage of the word "wine" in the Bible, proves that all other references to alcoholic wine should have negative connotation. In fact, by this principle of first use, the warning about excess (as obviously Noah experienced) is the primary scope of this text which is clearly carried forward throughout Scriptures. With out a doubt, every future misuse of alcoholic wine is shown to be the source of pain and trouble. It's the misuse of wine that is established in this first mention (and reinforced by the third mention, regarding Lot... see Genesis 19:32-38). As mentioned earlier in this section, not all interpreters of Scriptures hold first mention to be a concrete "law." As such the first mention of "sword" is given in regards to righteous judgment (Genesis 3:4) yet not every mention of a sword afterwards is for righteous purposes, some were for very evil purposes. I will even concede that the "law of first mention" could apply regarding swords, only wherein a broader perspective is in view, that it is an object that could be used to kill and whether it is for righteous purposes or evil purposes must be gained from context. Wine, too, fits into that category. It's interesting that one letter we received from a church skipped over the second mention of wine in Scriptures (calling the third occurrence, the one about Lot, the second). In fact, holding to their use of the "law of first mention", they have a real problem with the second occurrence, which may be why it was easier to ignore it. Genesis 14:18-20 Then Melchizedek king of Salem brought out bread and wine. He was priest of God Most High, 19 and he blessed Abram, saying, "Blessed be Abram by God Most High, Creator of heaven and earth. 20 And blessed be God Most High, who delivered your enemies into your hand." (NIV) If their "law of first mention" guarantees that all subsequent uses of "wine" have to show that it was evil (or brought about evil acts), then they would have to say that Melchizedek, priest of God Most High, intended evil in bringing bread and wine to Abram to eat and drink. This is certainly not so by the context. [As an aside: Utilizing the way the so-called law of first mention is used by some, consider the first mention of the word "priest." It's the occurrence of Melchizedek presenting bread and wine -- as a good thing! If that is carried to all future references, shouldn't all priests be presenting wine as a good thing?] The myth that Jesus drank non-alcoholic wine for Passover Knowing, as we have already seen, that grape juice begins to ferment on the same day it is squeezed, some would hold that perhaps it could have been fresh squeezed that day. There is a reference in Scriptures (albeit from a dream) that showed this could have taken place in some settings. Genesis 40:11 Pharaoh's cup was in my hand, and I took the grapes, squeezed them into Pharaoh's cup and put the cup in his hand." (NIV) This certainly would have been non-alcoholic wine or grape juice. So could this have been the case for the Passover? Not a chance. Mark 14:23-25 Then he [Jesus] took the cup, gave thanks and offered it to them, and they all drank from it. 24 "This is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many," he said to them. 25 "I tell you the truth, I will not drink again of the fruit of the vine until that day when I drink it anew in the kingdom of God." (NIV) The Passover was celebrated at the beginning of the religious New Year... Leviticus 23:5 The LORD's Passover begins at twilight on the fourteenth day of the first month. (NIV) Due to being based on a lunar calendar the actual date shifts between our March and April but the point remains, it is far after the grape harvest time of all regions in Israel. Remember there was no hothouse growing or imports from other climates in their day, let alone refrigerated storage. Grapes had to be eaten soon after harvest, or turned into wine (or raisins), or they would not last. Wine-Making. - ... The ripening of the grapes took place as early as June in the Jordan valley, but on the coast not until August, while in the hills it was delayed until September. (International Standard Bible Encyclopaedia) Grape juice consumed during Passover would have been in the form of wine aged for at least half a year, without exception. The myth that Jesus, as our high priest, could never have drunk alcoholic beverages. Leviticus 10:8-11 Then the LORD said to [high priest] Aaron, 9 "You and your sons are not to drink wine or other fermented drink whenever you go into the Tent of Meeting, or you will die. This is a lasting ordinance for the generations to come. 10 You must distinguish between the holy and the common, between the unclean and the clean, 11 and you must teach the Israelites all the decrees the LORD has given them through Moses." (NIV) This passage followed immediately after the untimely deaths of Nadab and Abihu, sons of Aaron, who had offered "unauthorized fire before the Lord." Though not explicit in the text, the giving of this prescription, for the priests on duty, in the aftermath of that event implies that Nadab and Abihu may have had impaired judgment (through alcoholic excess) in doing what they did. God always wanted His people to be of sound mind in making decisions and especially when leading or judging the people (Leviticus 19:15). Because of the possibility of fermented drink clouding one's judgment (even inadvertently), and since each person is affected in different ways, God strictly enforced times when drinking was not acceptable for His leaders. Ezekiel 44:21 No priest is to drink wine when he enters the inner court. (NIV) Simply put, the priests who were to be on duty were not to be drinking anything that could be alcoholic or impairing when used in excess - including new and old wine (Leviticus 10:9). This provided an easy way of avoiding even the appearance of an impropriety for this prominent office. The text is very clear in not banning the priests from ever drinking wine, by using specific terms of restriction: "whenever you go into the Tent of Meeting" and "when he enters the inner court." This Biblical principle still applies; drinking (especially to any possibility of impairment) before anything requiring sound judgment (including driving) has to be wrong. Even in our present state of moral decay, society would never accept a judge being drunk. One great warning about this very thing comes from Isaiah's day. Note the tie between the miscarriage of justice and drunkenness... Isaiah 5:22-23 Woe to those who are heroes at drinking wine and champions at mixing drinks, 23 who acquit the guilty for a bribe, but deny justice to the innocent. (See also Isaiah 28:7) Returning to our primary subject in this section, some have claimed that Jesus - as our high priest - is always on duty so this would guarantee that He never drank alcoholic beverages. "If He did it would violate His perfect fulfillment of Old Testament Scriptures." Firstly, we agree that Jesus is our high priest and that He continuously serves in this duty. The problem with their logic is regarding the nature of the priesthood. Jesus, born in the line of David (Matthew 1:1), clearly had the right to claim kingship in Israel. On the other hand, Jesus was not of the Levitical line, the mandated line for priests under the law (Exodus 29:9). Jesus, who perfectly fulfilled the just requirements of the law, could not have violated it in this area by becoming a Levitical priest or taking on the duties of a Levitical Priest. (Consider what happened to one king who unjustly took on the duties of a Levitical Priest: 2 Chronicles 26:16-21). Instead, Jesus was/is a high priest in the order of Melchizedek, perfectly fulfilling the prophecy of David... Psalms 110:4 The LORD has sworn and will not change his mind: "You are a priest forever, in the order of Melchizedek." (NIV When Jesus presented His perfect sacrifice to His Father, in the temple of heaven, He was doing so as High Priest in the order of Melchizedek! In replacing the Levitical priesthood with a more perfect one, Jesus permanently set aside the weaker. For this reason we have no more need of Levitical priests or regulations. Romans 10:4 Christ is the end of the law so that there may be righteousness for everyone who believes. (NIV) Hebrews 5:6-10 And he says in another place, "You are a priest forever, in the order of Melchizedek ." 7 During the days of Jesus' life on earth, he offered up prayers and petitions with loud cries and tears to the one who could save him from death, and he was heard because of his reverent submission. 8 Although he was a son, he learned obedience from what he suffered 9 and, once made perfect, he became the source of eternal salvation for all who obey him 10 and was designated by God to be high priest in the order of Melchizedek. (NIV) Hebrews 7:11-12 If perfection could have been attained through the Levitical priesthood (for on the basis of it the law was given to the people), why was there still need for another priest to come - one in the order of Melchizedek , not in the order of Aaron? 12 For when there is a change of the priesthood, there must also be a change of the law. (NIV) Hebrews 7:17-19 For it is declared: "You are a priest forever, in the order of Melchizedek." 18 The former regulation is set aside because it was weak and useless 19(for the law made nothing perfect), and a better hope is introduced, by which we draw near to God. (NIV) The regulations of the old law have been set aside, which includes all of those for the Levitical priesthood - they no longer apply! Remember, the primary weakness of the old law was that it tried to create holiness from external regulations, resulting in merely showing people that they were incapable of keeping them (that they were sinners!). Under the new, God changes us from the inside out so that we can truly do what is right; we no longer need long lists of intricate dos and don'ts. As a priest in the order of Melchizedek, could Jesus have drunk wine? Most certainly! Consider again what Melchizedek, the king of Salem, presented to Abraham and his men to eat and drink. (It should be noted that Melchizedek was serving as priest at that moment, as such on-duty, when he offered the blessing. Only Levitical priests were required to serve only in the temple.)... Genesis 14:18-19a Then Melchizedek king of Salem brought out bread and wine. He was priest of God Most High, 19 and he blessed Abram... (NIV) Drinking wine and getting drunk are truly two different things. The myth that adopting practices from the Old Testament law will somehow make you more holy. Regardless of how good the law was for those it was given to, once abrogated (fulfilled and no longer needed) it no longer serves its original purpose. For example; a little town with two main streets running through it had a quaint law that makes each of them a one-way street; one heading east, the other west. For 50 years this was the way things were done in an orderly fashion. Of course the enforcement of the law occasionally required the punishment of some flagrant law breakers. Years later, following the death of the original lawmakers, when new lawmakers governed the town, they determined that the one-way streets were not necessary and they rescinded the law. In the years that followed many good and law abiding citizens accepted the freedom that they had been given, now traveling east and west on both streets. A small group of longtime residents, always having been law abiding, but disagreeing with the decision to give this extra freedom (or in-the-least not understanding why it had changed) still traveled only one-way on each of the roads. If we freeze frame this picture right here, consider what has happened in this town. The lawmakers, in their wisdom have chosen to provide extra freedom (while still governed by law - a new law!). Most of the residents embrace this freedom, seeing it for what it is (a blessing!), and utilize it - all while remain good and law abiding citizens. Those who could not embrace the freedom, for whatever reason, spend much of their time angry at those who enjoy this new found freedom (and are sometimes even are angry at the lawmakers). They continue the old practice, seriously believing that it makes them better than those who do otherwise, some even occasionally calling the two-wayers lawbreakers (though they are not). These individuals, who continue to go one-way, as-such, are not breaking even the new law, so could be externally characterized as still being law-abiding. In fact, to remain law-abiding in the new era, they have had to modify their old law. Of course, in the new era of freedom, they can no longer drive down the left lane as they would collide with on-coming traffic. So, while they continue to pride themselves in remaining true to the original law, they in truth are following a law that they have had to modify. What have they gained? Absolutely nothing! Has it made them better than the others? In no way! (... and it can certainly be said that they are more judgmental and at least slightly bitter.) The Law (singular) was the combined body of ordinances that were handed down by Moses. Picking through them to find a few portions that you want to continue is in no way beneficial to a believer, unless they can be shown to be part of a new law that now pertains. If a person teaches that following one aspect of the old law, pertaining to priests, applies to believers now, then all of it should. Ezekiel 44:20-22 "'They must not shave their heads or let their hair grow long, but they are to keep the hair of their heads trimmed. 21 No priest is to drink wine when he enters the inner court. 22 They must not marry widows or divorced women; they may marry only virgins of Israelite descent or widows of priests. (NIV) This is only a small piece of all the regulations priests had to follow. Why some claim that regulations concerning priest should apply to believers, or typically some of the regulations, will be considered in the next section.

The myth that believers are priests unto God in the same order as the Old Testament (Mosaic) priests. Revelation 1:5-6 To him who loves us and has freed us from our sins by his blood, 6 and has made us to be a kingdom and priests to serve his God and Father - to him be glory and power for ever and ever! Amen. (NIV) [See also Revelation 5:10 and Revelation 20:6] It is unquestionable that God has made believers to be a kingdom of priests, all in service to Him. The question is this, "What order of priests are we?" As considered in the section regarding the priesthood of Jesus, where we found that He is a High Priest forever in the order of Melchizedek, we too are priests in that same order. Even as Levitical priests served God under the authority of the Levitical High Priest, we too serve God under the authority of our High Priest. Again, the regulations concerning the former no longer apply. If we were to be Levitical priests we would first have to be Jewish and secondly from the line of Levi. As priests in the order of Melchizedek, this is no longer necessary. Consider that God in granting us eternal life, from the time we become believers (and priests!), enables us to remain one forever (see Hebrews 7:3) - unlike the Levitical priests whose death prevents them from continuing in office (Hebrew 7:23). The myth that the yeast that formed the alcohol would have made wine impure. Exodus 12:15-16 For seven days you are to eat bread made without yeast. On the first day remove the yeast from your houses, for whoever eats anything with yeast in it from the first day through the seventh must be cut off from Israel. 16 On the first day hold a sacred assembly, and another one on the seventh day. Do no work at all on these days, except to prepare food for everyone to eat - that is all you may do. (NIV) Since the celebration of the Passover required that no yeast be eaten, some have said that this shows that things made with yeast are impure. The reason God told them to not eat yeast during that feast had nothing to do with an intrinsic impurity but everything to do with reminding them of what He had done in bringing them out of Egypt (see Exodus 12:8). It was part of the symbolism that illustrated the urgency with which God was about to take them out of Egypt. Making bread with yeast takes time, with out can be prepared rapidly (consider also Genesis 19:3 and 1 Samuel 28:24). Exodus 12:11 This is how you are to eat it: with your cloak tucked into your belt, your sandals on your feet and your staff in your hand. Eat it in haste; it is the LORD's Passover. (NIV) Once again, we need to emphasize that these regulations of the Old Testament law have been completed in the person of Jesus Christ and no longer apply to believers (see Romans 10:4). All the mandates concerning yeast are certainly part of that former law. In regards to wine, like bread, the yeast is typically consumed in the process of making it. Even as they ate bread made from yeast during the other 51 weeks of the year, so too they drank wine made from yeast. In fact, they drank wine made from yeast during the Passover, as only bread made with yeast was banned. Remember, as we have already seen, all wine during the season of the Passover was fermented. Before continuing we need to note that yeast is not always used in a negative connotation throughout Scriptures, as some have claimed. While it's true that it is used to illustrate the pervasive, incremental, and infectious nature of sin (Mark 8:15, 1 Corinthians 5:6-8, Galatians 5:7-9), it also is used to show how the gospel of Christ, starting small, continues to expand throughout society (Matthew 13:33). Some biblical references to yeast, however, make no allusion to the Feast of Unleavened Bread and do not use yeast as a symbol of evil. In particular, Christ's parabolic reference to the kingdom of heaven being like yeast that a woman put in a lump of dough does not mean the kingdom of heaven is evil, but merely that it grows unobserved. (Evangelical Dictionary of Biblical Theology. Copyright © 1996 by Baker Books.) Returning to the usage of wine during the Passover; when Jesus said, "This cup is the new covenant in my blood, which is poured out for you. (Luke 22:20)," he was holding a cup of fermented wine (still called "new wine" as it was only about half a year old). The concept of wine being poured out harkens back to an Old Testament practice, namely the drink offering. While prescribed in the Old Testament law, it appears to have been practiced even prior to the giving of the law (see Genesis 35:14). The drink offering, in the law, was typically poured out on an altar in association with sacrifices and other offerings (Exodus 29:40-41, Exodus 30:9, Leviticus 23:13, Numbers 15:5-7, Numbers 28:7, 15). The law being a shadow of good things to come (Colossians 2:17, Hebrews 10:1) carried much symbolism. Jesus' words, that the cup of wine represented His blood being poured out, are the same as what was represented in the past. All need of sacrifices (and offerings that were part of them) pointed to the fact that a perfect sacrifice was required to pay for sin. Some, who believe alcoholic beverages are wrong, have tried to say that drink offerings represented sin being poured out, but this is not so. The drink poured out, was part of the offering (representing a solution) not the problem (sin) which called for that sacrifice. This is clearly represented when Jesus referred to the cup as being his perfect blood, which was to be poured out. The apostle Paul, in like manner, refers to his life of service to God in a similar way - saying that his blood (or life, see Leviticus 17:11, Deuteronomy 12:23) was being poured out as a living sacrifice. Obviously this characterization of wine is far from representing sin, as Paul's good work was done in the power of the Spirit. 2 Timothy 4:6-7 For I am already being poured out like a drink offering, and the time has come for my departure. 7 I have fought the good fight, I have finished the race, I have kept the faith. (NIV) [See also Philippians 2:17]. The myth that the Passover wine had to be pure wine. While it's certain that the Passover wine was alcoholic wine, what is not as certain is its' purity. Wine mingled with water was often referred to merely as wine (new or old). It was not an uncommon practice in ancient times to make your limited supply of wine go further through mixing it with water. In addition, Jews knowing that drinking the wine was good but drunkenness was not often utilized this practice during times which called for drinking more cups of wine. The Passover was one such time. During the Passover meal, four cups of wine were consumed according to the Jewish Mishna. [The Mishna, compiled after the destruction of the temple, may only be reflecting what had become common practice following the destruction, when some elements of the Passover had to change from necessity]. To avoid the sin of drunkenness, mingling of wine with water was practiced. This dilution was specified by the Rabbis in NT times for the wine then customary at Passover. (Theological Wordbook of the Old Testament. Copyright © 1980 by The Moody Bible Institute of Chicago.) The Mishna, in the treatise on the Passover, informs us that four cups of wine were poured out and blessed, and drunk by each of the company at the eating of the Paschal lamb, and that water was also mixed with the wine, because it was considered too strong to be drunk alone (Pesachiz, 7:13; 10:1). In Hieros. Sabb. (11, 1) we read, "It is commanded that this rite be performed with red wine;" Babylon Sabb. (77, 1), "Sharon wine is of famous report, with which they mix two parts of water;" Babylon. Berachoth (fol. 1), "Their wine was very strong, and not fit for drinking without being mixed with water." The Gemara adds, "The cup of blessing is not to be blessed until it is mixed with water;" the Jerusalem Talmud says, "It became a man nobly to entertain his wife and children (at the Passover), that at this feast they might be merry with wine"). To meet the objection, How can intoxication be hindered? the rabbins replied, "Because wine between eating does not intoxicate a man" (Hieros. Talm.). (McClintock and Strong Encyclopedia) Bede, writing circa 734 A.D., says this emphatically... The wine of the Lord's cup is mixed with water... (cited in the Catena Aurea of Thomas Aquinas) It is quite probable that this was the case, if multiple cups of wine were utilized, as it fits the symbolism of Jesus' own words. Luke 22:20 In the same way, after the supper he took the cup, saying, "This cup is the new covenant in my blood, which is poured out for you. (NIV) With the wine symbolic of Jesus' blood being poured out in sacrifice, that it would be mingled with water fully illustrated what later physically took place on the cross. John 19:33-34 But when they came to Jesus and found that he was already dead, they did not break his legs. 34 Instead, one of the soldiers pierced Jesus' side with a spear, bringing a sudden flow of blood and water. (NIV) The myth that Jesus was under a Nazarite vow. There is a common mix-up between being from Nazareth and taking a Nazarite vow. Not everyone from Nazareth lived as a Nazarite, much less all the time. In fact you didn't even have to be from Nazareth to take a Nazarite vow. Normally the Nazirite vow was temporary and voluntary. Its conditions were for a set period only. Numbers 6:1-4 The LORD said to Moses, 2 "Speak to the Israelites and say to them: 'If a man or woman wants to make a special vow, a vow of separation to the LORD as a Nazirite, 3 he must abstain from wine and other fermented drink and must not drink vinegar made from wine or from other fermented drink. He must not drink grape juice or eat grapes or raisins. 4 As long as he is a Nazirite, he must not eat anything that comes from the grapevine, not even the seeds or skins. Numbers 6:18-20 "'Then at the entrance to the Tent of Meeting, the Nazirite must shave off the hair that he dedicated. He is to take the hair and put it in the fire that is under the sacrifice of the fellowship offering. 19 "'After the Nazirite has shaved off the hair of his dedication, the priest is to place in his hands a boiled shoulder of the ram, and a cake and a wafer from the basket, both made without yeast. 20 The priest shall then wave them before the LORD as a wave offering; they are holy and belong to the priest, together with the breast that was waved and the thigh that was presented. After that, the Nazirite may drink wine. [The word 'wine' here references fermented wine, not grape juice as in Numbers 6:3] How can we prove that Jesus did not live His life under a Nazarite vow? Consider what he drank. Even those who try to turn the Passover wine into grape juice have to concede that He was still drinking something that comes from a grapevine. The Nazarite vow excluded the individual from ANY product of the vine; old wine, new wine, grape juice, and even wine that had turned to vinegar - not even raisins! Obviously Jesus was not a Nazarite and didn't have to have long hair as commonly portrayed in paintings, etc. Actually, there appears to be only two men that may have been under a Nazarite vow from birth; Samson and perhaps John the Baptist. Samson's mother and Samson himself were instructed to not drink fermented wine or any strong drink. Judges 13:7 But he said to me, 'You will conceive and give birth to a son. Now then, drink no wine or other fermented drink and do not eat anything unclean, because the boy will be a Nazirite of God from birth until the day of his death.'" (NIV) Judges 13:13-14 The angel of the LORD answered, "Your wife must do all that I have told her. 14 She must not eat anything that comes from the grapevine, nor drink any wine or other fermented drink nor eat anything unclean. She must do everything I have commanded her." (NIV) Samson was a unique case in that he was to be raised under a Nazirite vow from before birth - by God's choice, not Sampson's - as he wasn't even born yet. While nowhere expressed, John the Baptist was thought to be under a similar vow as he was given some of the same restrictions. Luke 1:14-16 He will be a joy and delight to you, and many will rejoice because of his birth, 15 for he will be great in the sight of the Lord. He is never to take wine or other fermented drink, and he will be filled with the Holy Spirit even from birth. (NIV) While having an appearance of the Nazirite, this restriction did not exclude grapes or raisins, or require uncut hair, so it may have been unique.

The myth that only wine was permitted as an alcoholic drink. In the passage from Luke considered in the last section, regarding the restrictions on John the Baptist, "other fermented drink" is mentioned. The words translated as such, in Old and New Testaments, refer to additional fermented drinks made with other types of fruit or even from grains (similar to beers). The meaning of the word "shekar" in the Old Testament times (as in Numbers 6:3) includes: Strong drink, beer. Most likely not "liquor" for there is no evidence of distilled liquor in ancient times. It denotes not just barley beer but any alcoholic beverage prepared from either grain or fruit. (Theological Wordbook of the Old Testament. Copyright © 1980 by The Moody Bible Institute of Chicago.) In New Testament times (as in Luke 1:15), there was a directly correlating word, "sikera", which functionally meant the same. Strong drink, an intoxicating beverage, different from wine; it was a factitious product, made of a mixture of sweet ingredients, whether derived from grain and vegetables, or from the juice of fruits (dates), or a decoction of honey (from Thayer's Greek Lexicon) The reason many of these drinks would clearly carry the label "strong drink" was that they were made from substances containing more sugar than grapes, thus permitting greater fermentation as the sugars are converted to alcohol. These alcoholic beverages were permitted to be used as part of an offering at the temple, even as wine was (see Numbers 28:7). This alone showed that the people made and consumed these as beverages, as it is highly unlikely that a person would go through the effort to make just a little for taking to the temple. More specifically, an amazing passage almost always overlooked today speaks of the original use of the Biblical tithe in the Old Testament law. Notice that the greater portion of the tithe was for the consumption of the giver in fellowship. Deuteronomy 14:22-26 Be sure to set aside a tenth of all that your fields produce each year. 23 Eat the tithe of your grain, new wine and oil, and the firstborn of your herds and flocks in the presence of the LORD your God at the place he will choose as a dwelling for his Name, so that you may learn to revere the LORD your God always. 24 But if that place is too distant and you have been blessed by the LORD your God and cannot carry your tithe because the place where the LORD will choose to put his Name is so far away), 25 then exchange your tithe for silver, and take the silver with you and go to the place the LORD your God will choose. 26 Use the silver to buy whatever you like: cattle, sheep, wine or other fermented drink, or anything you wish. Then you and your household shall eat there in the presence of the LORD your God and rejoice. The permitted use (v26) included drinking fermented wine and other fermented drinks ("shekar") while on worship pilgrimage to Jerusalem! This ancient and accepted practice would have continued to Jesus' time. In this accepted use God never condones drunkenness. The usage of these beverages is presupposed on the basis of many passages to only be in moderation. To be fair and perhaps to make this clear, there are more passages in Scriptures speaking of the effects of misuse than there are positive. (God seems to work this way throughout Scriptures, often using repeated negatives to show harm when we deviate from the more rarely stated good. Consider the topic of marriage... certainly the good is mentioned, yet many more passages warn of the harm that comes from adultery.) The myth that Jesus refused the wine/vinegar at his crucifixion because it was alcoholic. Proverbs 20:1 Wine is a mocker and beer a brawler; whoever is led astray by them is not wise. (NIV) Some have said that since all wine is a mocker because it is alcoholic, Jesus would have refused it because it was being used to mock him (the passage above from Proverbs being the "proof text"). Notice that the passage in Proverbs is specifically speaking about being "led astray" from alcoholic drinks, or in other words, drinking to excess. Truly drunkenness is the factor that makes wine a mocker even as it makes beer a brawler. Contextually this passage doesn't apply to what was happening at Jesus' crucifixion as drunkenness was not in view. Certainly, Jesus was being mocked though, not by alcohol but by the people. Three occurrences are in view... Mark 15:23-26 Then they offered him wine mixed with myrrh, but he did not take it. 24 And they crucified him. Dividing up his clothes, they cast lots to see what each would get. 25 It was the third hour when they crucified him. 26 The written notice of the charge against him read: THE KING OF THE JEWS. (NIV) Here Jesus was offered wine mixed with myrrh. Some have speculated that it would have been a numbing agent, which the wine might have done if offered in large quantities. Myrrh adds nothing to the intoxicating properties of wine. Myrrh and other spices were commonly added to wine in Jesus' day because the wine often didn't have excellent taste sometimes due to the natural yeasts that fermented it. For the wealthy, the cure was extravagant spices to make the wine taste even better. Those offering the wine mixed with myrrh were mocking Jesus on the same level as those wanting "King of the Jews" written over his cross. They were offering him the drink of the powerful and elite. Of course He refused it! Luke 23:36-37 The soldiers also came up and mocked him. They offered him wine vinegar 37 and said, "If you are the king of the Jews, save yourself." (NIV) The soldiers mocked Jesus in a different fashion, this time offering Him wine that had turned to vinegar, wine that had started to go bad, the drink of the poor, while called Him a king. Of course He refused it again! John 19:28-30 Later, knowing that all was now completed, and so that the Scripture would be fulfilled, Jesus said, "I am thirsty." 29 A jar of wine vinegar was there, so they soaked a sponge in it, put the sponge on a stalk of the hyssop plant, and lifted it to Jesus' lips. 30 When he had received the drink, Jesus said, "It is finished." With that, he bowed his head and gave up his spirit. (NIV) Toward the end, Jesus actually drank some of the cheap wine (most likely that which was earlier offered mockingly), after He had asked for it. This He drank (certainly in moderation) as it was given in response to His request and not as part of cruel mocking. [This obviously did not contradict what Jesus said in Mark 14:25 or He would not have done it! The fruit of the vine in Mark 14:25 was clearly the wine taken in fellowship of the Passover, see verses 23 and 24 before, that became the celebration of the Lord's Supper in the Kingdom of God. The wine-vinegar on the cross certainly was not.] The myth that the command to "be sober" requires complete abstinence from alcoholic beverages 1 Thessalonians 5:5-8 for you are all sons of light and sons of day. We are not of night nor of darkness; 6 so then let us not sleep as others do, but let us be alert and sober. 7 For those who sleep do their sleeping at night, and those who get drunk get drunk at night. 8 But since we are of the day, let us be sober, having put on the breastplate of faith and love, and as a helmet, the hope of salvation. (NASU) [See also 1 Peter 1:13, 1 Peter 4:7, and 1 Peter 5:8] A number of Bible passages, especially as worded in the King James Version (NKJV and NASB too), call for believers to "be sober." The KJV doesn't consistently translate the word to "be sober" using the command to "watch" in a few places. The New International Version translates it to be "self-controlled." While the word itself can literally mean "to abstain from wine" (as in Strong's), a meaning that would perhaps first come to mind by our English usage of the word, it's figurative meaning is much broader - far closer to the idea of being "self-controlled." Something very important to understand about all of the usages of the word "be sober" in the New Testament is this... The verb [Greek of "be sober"] is found in the NT only in the figurative sense, always in exhortations. (Exegetical Dictionary of the New Testament © 1990 by William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company) It's the figurative sense of the word that is in view, a meaning that includes: to be in control of one's thought processes and thus not be in danger of irrational thinking - 'to be sober-minded, to be well composed in mind.' (Greek-English Lexicon Based on Semantic Domain. Copyright © 1988 United Bible Societies, New York.) In general, these references to being sober say that we are not to have impaired thought processes, which can come from drinking in excess or even from misusing drugs as we will consider later. The use of "be sober" in 1 Thessalonians 5:8 is the only place in the New Testament that the word could be accepted in it's literal sense. It is possible that in 1 Thessalonians 5:8 [Greek for "be sober"] means lack of drunkenness, but most scholars interpret the use of in the NT as applying to a broader range of soberness or sobriety, namely, restraint and moderation which avoids excess in passion, rashness, or confusion. (Greek-English Lexicon Based on Semantic Domain. Copyright © 1988 United Bible Societies, New York. Used by permission.) A primary reason why most scholars defer to a figurative meaning even in 1 Thessalonians is the preponderance of passages that show permitted use of alcohol in moderation. Even in the 1 Thessalonians passage (v7) it says "those who get drunk get drunk at night." It is drunkenness that is a characteristic of unbelievers, in contrast to moderation and self-control of those who are sons of the day. Through the absolute principle of using Scriptures to interpret Scriptures it can be shown that to "be sober" does not mean absolutely abstaining from all alcoholic beverages. Paul instructed Timothy to "be sober"... 2 Timothy 4:5 But you, be sober in all things, endure hardship, do the work of an evangelist, fulfill your ministry. (NASU) [Note that the KJV doesn't use "be sober" in this passage, though the word is clearly found in the Greek.] Yet, Paul could and did also instruct Timothy to drink alcoholic beverages in moderation. 1 Timothy 5:23 Stop drinking only water, and use a little wine because of your stomach and your frequent illnesses. (NIV) Obviously, by Scriptures, being sober does not have to mean complete abstinence from alcoholic beverages. The idea of mingling water with wine was not something unique in Bible times, ancient and Jewish sources show that it was practiced both to extend the supply of wine and to minimize the possibility of drunkenness when larger quantities might have been consumed.

The myth that we shouldn't drink at all because people might think (or say) that we condone or practice drunkenness Matthew 10:24-25 "A student is not above his teacher, nor a servant above his master. 25 It is enough for the student to be like his teacher, and the servant like his master. If the head of the house has been called Beelzebub, how much more the members of his household! (NIV) The special case of John the Baptist, which we considered earlier, was legitimately thought to be out of the ordinary by society - though their attribution of such to demonic forces was not. Luke 7:33 For John the Baptist came neither eating bread nor drinking wine, and you say, 'He has a demon.' Moderate use of alcoholic beverages was a regular part of life in first century Israel, only restricted for specific times by optional vows or certain instances due to duties being performed. Combine this with John the Baptist's dress, austere eating regiment (Matthew 3:4), and restricted group of friends and John certainly stood out, as God wanted! Jesus appeared to be in sharp contrast to John the Baptist, not because of the message, but because of the way He lived. Jesus freely ate and drank, even with those who society held to be unclean. Those who didn't like this were quick to twist this freedom as well, claiming that His eating was gluttony and that His drinking of alcoholic wine was drunkenness. Of course, the perfect and sinless Son of God misused neither. Luke 7:34 The Son of Man came eating and drinking, and you say, 'Here is a glutton and a drunkard, a friend of tax collectors and "sinners."' The clear sense of these two verses show that Jesus drank fermented wine. If He was only drinking unfermented grape juice (an impossibility year round) their claims and contrast to John the Baptist would make absolutely no sense. What Jesus had done went beyond merely demonstrating perfect self-control in not over eating or drinking wine to excess; He revealed the misguided nature of the people in looking to externals. Even as there are today, there were people back then who had preconceived ideas of how a religious leader should be acting externally, John the Baptist was on one extreme (similar to the Essenes) and Jesus was to the other. Neither compromised the message, yet because people wrongly focused on externals, both were unjustly condemned and mischaracterized. As believers, in the freedoms we have been given, we no longer have long lists of rules concerning external actions. The internal change that God is working in us, by His word (John 17:17), should be showing through everything we do. If people mischaracterize our freedoms, or wrongly condemn them, expecting a preconceived set of externals, remember that they did so to Jesus before us. This didn't cause Jesus to change what He did, though He did continue to teach what the real focus was supposed to be (namely internals) - and we should too! The myth that our freedom in Christ enables us to drink to excess or to impose our freedom on others. The freedom we (believers) have been given in Christ gives us great liberty, but not to sin. If drinking is for the purpose of drunkenness Paul clearly states that it is the flesh that is being gratified... Galatians 5:13-15, 19, 21 You, my brothers, were called to be free. But do not use your freedom to indulge the sinful nature; rather, serve one another in love. 14 The entire law is summed up in a single command: "Love your neighbor as yourself." ... 19 The acts of the sinful nature are obvious: ... drunkenness... Believers living out "love your neighbor as yourself" have to consider the effects of their actions on others, especially if they have less faith. Romans 14:19-23 Let us therefore make every effort to do what leads to peace and to mutual edification. 20 Do not destroy the work of God for the sake of food. All food is clean, but it is wrong for a man to eat anything that causes someone else to stumble. 21 It is better not to eat meat or drink wine or to do anything else that will cause your brother to fall. 22 So whatever you believe about these things keep between yourself and God. Blessed is the man who does not condemn himself by what he approves. 23 But the man who has doubts is condemned if he eats, because his eating is not from faith; and everything that does not come from faith is sin. Some have tried to take verse 21, above, to say that it means you should stop eating or drinking everything that offends any believer. If this is so, it would likely leave a whole lot less to eat because there are people who are offended with various corporations for unbiblical stands, because the company also sells products they disagree with (like alcohol) or ownership by cults like the Mormons. These Christians call for boycotts of all those companies's food and drink products. Still others claim all carbonated drinks to be harmful, others all or some meat products. [I like the principle of 1 Corinthians 10:25-33 here!] The list could go on and on and we haven't really gotten to alcoholic beverages yet. Verse 22, which follows right after, helps to clarify the concept of verse 21. If I have freedom to eat or drink any of these items in faith, that is between myself and God. I must never use that freedom in such a way as to harm a weaker brother or sister. For example, if I in my Christian liberty was able to have a drink of wine with my evening meal, serving it while having a brother over who struggles with alcoholism (or drunkenness) would be completely wrong. In the principle of 1st Corinthians 9:19-23 it would be just as wrong to serve it to a Muslim (who drinks no alcohol) while seeking to witness to him (this would be like serving a pork sandwich to a Jew; certainly not beneficial to the cause of Christ). The New Testament continues the same theme, to be wise and not unwise. Part of the wisdom of not getting drunk is the sin it can lead to. As believers we should be controlled by the Holy Spirit and not by anything of this world. We've been set free from the control of sin (Romans 6:22)! Ephesians 5:15-18 Be very careful, then, how you live-not as unwise but as wise, 16 making the most of every opportunity, because the days are evil. 17 Therefore do not be foolish, but understand what the Lord's will is. 18 Do not get drunk on wine, which leads to debauchery. Instead, be filled with the Spirit. Verse 18, as in the KJV ("And be not drunk with wine, wherein is excess") is all about the excess and being get drunk through the same. The contrast, being filled with the Holy Spirit, is what brings about the self-control that we so desperately need. Scripture condemns the abuse, not the use, of wine. In condemnatory passages no hint is given of there being an unfermented wine to which the condemnation does not apply. (Fausset's Bible Dictionary) For the record, it is NOT imposing one's freedom on another to study this issue through Scriptures and to teach what the Bible says about it to others. Like all instruction however, everything is to be done in proper time. Believers who don't understand what it means to have freedom in Christ will never understand this particular freedom. Chipping away at one legalistic practice doesn't cure the problem of legalism. The myth that only grape-juice can be used for the Lord's Supper (Communion, Eucharist, etc.) As we have already studied, the Passover cup with which Jesus instituted the Lord's Supper utilized alcoholic wine. For the exact same reasons, this was the practice of the church until Welch came along. Yet there are church leaders that still claim that this ordinance should never use fermented wine. One of the very reasons that Paul wrote the following passage in 1 Corinthians was to caution them that their excess was wrong in how they were celebrating. 1 Corinthians 11:18-22 In the first place, I hear that when you come together as a church, there are divisions among you, and to some extent I believe it. 19 No doubt there have to be differences among you to show which of you have God's approval. 20 When you come together, it is not the Lord's Supper you eat, 21 for as you eat, each of you goes ahead without waiting for anybody else. One remains hungry, another gets drunk. 22 Don't you have homes to eat and drink in? Or do you despise the church of God and humiliate those who have nothing? What shall I say to you? Shall I praise you for this? Certainly not! These believers had turned the Lord's Supper into something that it was never intended to be, where large quantities of wine could be consumed. This was certainly far from the moderate ceremonial usage of wine in the original Passover ordinance (Luke 22:15-20). The Lord's Supper was a continuation of an element of the Passover celebration with a new focus, namely the fulfillment as found in the death, burial and resurrection of Jesus Christ. Paul sets the Corinthian church straight on the proper observance of this ordinance in the verses that follows, clearly stating that bread was to be the only food item (v23-24) and then refers to the cup. The contents of the cup were assumed, based on the original Passover, and already known by the church to be wine (the very thing some had been misusing to drunkenness). [As an aside, note that Paul also assumed that they would know that the bread served during the Passover would have been unleavened.] The myth that everyone has to drink wine. In the extreme to the total abstinence camp, there are believers that think all Christians need to drink wine. While it is the clear example and teaching of Scriptures that it was and can be common practice, there are justifying reasons for total abstinence for some. If keeping from all alcoholic beverages is necessary to keep yourself from being led astray, from being caught up in excess and drunkenness, then that is what you need to do. It may be different for someone else. Psalms 104:14-15 He [God] makes grass grow for the cattle, and plants for man to cultivate-- bringing forth food from the earth: 15 wine [fermented] that gladdens the heart of man, oil to make his face shine, and bread that sustains his heart. Numerous medical studies of late have shown that there is benefit to moderate drinking of especially wine. This appears to be alluded to in some passages of Scriptures as well, but never in a way that says "everyone needs to drink." Verse 15, above, does not say that it's the excess of wine that gladdens the heart, merely having some to enjoy will have this effect. For others, having any cannot be a joy, rather it is a burden. With these individuals the potential for harm (drunkenness) outweighs any potential benefit (this is often called alcoholism). It's due to man's tendency toward excesses that God recorded far more warnings against a potential abuse... Isaiah 5:11 Woe to those who rise early in the morning to run after their drinks, who stay up late at night till they are inflamed with wine. Proverbs 21:17 He who loves pleasure will become poor; whoever loves wine and oil will never be rich. Proverbs 23:20-21 Do not join those who drink too much wine or gorge themselves on meat, 21 for drunkards and gluttons become poor, and drowsiness clothes them in rags. Consider that last passage in Proverbs where drunkenness and gluttony are uttered in the same breath. No one suggests giving up food as a solution to gluttony, rather the issue is one of self-control (or should I say, "God-control!" See Galatians 5:22-23.). For some, the self-control has to come in the form of total abstinence from all alcoholic beverages, because they know that a little would present too great a temptation. For them, this is the wise and right course of action. Individuals can set different personal lines of restriction to help limit their own personal temptation. For example, some guys can go to the beach and not be tempted by the females in bathing suits. Another may choose to never go solely because he has a weakness in this area. For him this is the right thing to do, and certainly God honoring. Where it becomes wrong (called "legalism") comes from attempting to impose it on others as the only right thing to do. Each believer is accountable to God for his or her own actions in areas of freedom that He has granted. Throughout Biblical history, some people choose not to drink for a variety of reasons. Daniel chose not to partake of the king's wine in Babylon because it, as with the meat, would have been offered to idols (See Daniel 1:8-16). One entire family line choose not to drink (and live only in tents) to honor their father. Jeremiah 35:5-8 Then I set bowls full of wine and some cups before the men of the Recabite family and said to them, "Drink some wine." 6 But they replied, "We do not drink wine, because our forefather Jonadab son of Recab gave us this command: 'Neither you nor your descendants must ever drink wine. 7 Also you must never build houses, sow seed or plant vineyards; you must never have any of these things, but must always live in tents. Then you will live a long time in the land where you are nomads.' 8 We have obeyed everything our forefather Jonadab son of Recab commanded us. (NIV) Each of these individuals honored God in their actions, yet their actions were not the norm, nor are they taught in Scriptures that they need to be.

The myth that alcohol and drugs are not the same topic When a person tries to legalistically ban all alcohol it creates a standard that can't be upheld. Merely eating many ripe fruits contain some alcohol, as do other much used items including cough syrup. In fact, the internal medicinal use of alcohol is often conceded by those who would ban it in all other areas. The following pas